165 UH or 165 OT

Winchester, I really do like them all. Enough to try to collect as many variations as I can. Possibly my favorite is this one rehandled in stag by Orvet.

orvet001.jpg
 
Codger(Michael) How was the 440a or was it 420hc toward the last steel on the 165uh. Was their heat treatment on 440a any better than ayone elses? Contrary to what some have said I don't believe the steel was ever 440c but 440a or 420hc. Is the 420hc steel just a little better than 440a?
 
I never found anything to complain about on any of their steel's heat treat (and cryo). I just prefer 1095hc for it's ease of sharpening. I can understand why some like blades that are easier to keep shiney. It was one major reason why, near the end, they were doing a running change to stainless on many of their traditionally carbon steel knives. Modern buyers thought that blade staining and rusting indicated inferior metal, not a reflection in their own care of their knives. A lot of what users of my generation and previous generations took for granted as common knowledge, evidently, became not quite so common. Schrade's return policies dictated by both Sears and Wal-Mart led to huge losses, mostly on tarnish issues. Schrade had to take them back. Some they could reprocess, repackage and resell, though the added costs of that after replacing the product to the merchant, did not leave much room for profit.

I have examples of the last 165UH/OT and the last 152OT in stainless, but I still gravitate toward my old standby carbon steel blades when game dressing calls. I used my 152GP Camillus last year and even though it is a different carbon alloy than 1095 (1075?), I still preferred it to the stainless one. I suppose you could say that it is just personal preference. I suppose that if one wanted, he could buy an example of any one stainless pattern from all eras and compare them with scientific testing to see what differences there are in the steels.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top